Impact of the Distribution Parameter of Data Sampling Approaches on Software Defect Prediction Models

被引:7
作者
Bennin, Kwabena Ebo [1 ]
Keung, Jacky [1 ]
Monden, Akito [2 ]
机构
[1] City Univ Hong Kong, Dept Comp Sci, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[2] Okayama Univ, Grad Sch Nat Sci & Technol, Okayama, Japan
来源
2017 24TH ASIA-PACIFIC SOFTWARE ENGINEERING CONFERENCE (APSEC 2017) | 2017年
关键词
Search based SE; Defect prediction; Sampling methods; Imbalanced Data; Preprocessing; Empirical software engineering; SMOTE;
D O I
10.1109/APSEC.2017.76
中图分类号
TP31 [计算机软件];
学科分类号
081202 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Sampling methods are known to impact defect prediction performance. These sampling methods have configurable parameters that can significantly affect the prediction performance. It is however, impractical to assess the effect of all the possible different settings in the parameter space for all the several existing sampling methods. A constant and easy to tweak parameter present in all sampling methods is the distribution of the defective and non-defective modules in the dataset known as Pfp (% of fault-prone modules). In this paper, we investigate and assess the performance of defect prediction models where the Pfp parameter of sampling methods are tweaked. An empirical experiment and assessment of seven sampling methods on five prediction models over 20 releases of 10 static metric projects indicate that (1) Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve (AUC) performance is not improved after tweaking the Pfp parameter, (2) pf (false alarms) performance degrades as the Pfp is increased. (3) a stable predictor is difficult to achieve across different Pfp rates. Hence, we conclude that the Pfp parameter setting can have a large impact on the performance (except AUC) of defect prediction models. We thus recommend researchers experiment with the Pfp parameter of the sampling method since the distribution of training datasets vary.
引用
收藏
页码:630 / 635
页数:6
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2017, ARXIV170503697
[2]  
[Anonymous], WRS COMPILED PACKAGE
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2012, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
[4]  
[Anonymous], PAC AS C KNOWL DISC
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2008, Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on Predictor models in software engineering
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2017, IEEE T SOFTWARE ENG
[7]   A systematic and comprehensive investigation of methods to build and evaluate fault prediction models [J].
Arisholm, Erik ;
Briand, Lionel C. ;
Johannessen, Eivind B. .
JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE, 2010, 83 (01) :2-17
[8]   Strategies for learning in class imbalance problems [J].
Barandela, R ;
Sánchez, JS ;
García, V ;
Rangel, E .
PATTERN RECOGNITION, 2003, 36 (03) :849-851
[9]   Empirical Evaluation of Cross-Release Effort-Aware Defect Prediction Models [J].
Bennin, Kwabena Ebo ;
Toda, Koji ;
Kamei, Yasutaka ;
Keung, Jacky ;
Monden, Akito ;
Ubayashi, Naoyasu .
2016 IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SOFTWARE QUALITY, RELIABILITY AND SECURITY (QRS 2016), 2016, :214-221
[10]   Investigating the Effects of Balanced Training and Testing Datasets on Effort-Aware Fault Prediction Models [J].
Bennin, Kwabena Ebo ;
Keung, Jacky ;
Monden, Akito ;
Kamei, Yasutaka ;
Ubayashi, Naoyasu .
PROCEEDINGS 2016 IEEE 40TH ANNUAL COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND APPLICATIONS CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS, VOL 1, 2016, :154-163